Aug. 31.
Customs notifications on shipping regulations and the definition of wide and narrow waters do not as a rule attract the general public. But Notification No, 959 issued on August 26 "by order of the Inspector-General," contains a clause which calls for attention, The notification states that the Chinese Government has now defined the Yangtze River a narrow channel' within the meaning of Article 26 of the International Regulations for Preventing Col-hsiens at Sea," from Ichang to the mouth of the river; and it] concludes with this proviso:
"The International regulations for preventing collisions at sea are binding only on Chinese vessels of {foreign type and are not applicable se native craft."
That is a frank ads a considerable portion of seafaring community of China are not capable of understanding and acting by such universally accepted traffic rule: ere cognized by the rest of the civilized world and commonly Known as the International Regulations for Prevention of Col-hsiens at Sea. It contrasts oddly with the claim made by the Chinese delegates at the International Chamiber of Commerce congress, at Amsterdam, for the admission of China craft (whatever that say mean), from all responsibility for any accidents that may occur, no matter how gravely they may be in fault as judged by International rules. Let us consider a concrete application, It is not going beyond the bounds ut possibility to conceive a Chinese steamer outward bound, say from Shanghai, faced with a risk of collision with a Chinese native craft, so mancuvring a3 to bring about a collision with, say, an "Empress" steamer ward bound, with disastrous results to the "Empress", In the inevitable court case that would ensue, we should have the lawyers for the Chinese steamer arguing that, although their steamer had departed from the International Rules, she was foreed thereto by the action of the native craft, to which Inter national Rules (vide the Customs Notification) do not apply; and that in consequence, all blame must rest on the "Empress"! Will the Supreme Court for China support such 'a conten-ion? And if not, or if yes, will they more clearly define what rules do govern the action of the "native" craft to which the Customs Notification refers, and what kind of craft these are?
The advocates of the abolition of extraterritoriality cannot have it both ways, Either China is sufficiently advanced to take her place as an equal, not only regards rights, but also abi ties, amongst other nations, or she is not; and one-sided noti+ fications such as No. 959 simply announce to the world that sha does not yet assume an equal place even in such a common thing as adhering to rules made for the safety of life in naviga able waters. Criticisms of this Kind are too often dismissed as merely carping, but it is no part of a friend of China to pass over, in silence so conspicuous an anomaly as this notification con~ tains, especially in view of the very serious results that may arise from its application, 'The point of our criticism will cer tainly not be missed by all Chinese who honestly desire, and with justice, that their nation should take' its place on an equality with others in the world's transactions. All think among the nations on a footing of equality.
Who is primarily responsible for this notice, we have no idea, but clearly it' ought not to be allowed to stand. In effect, if} not in intention, it is plainly ing Chinese will surely recognize obligation to define more clearly their responsibilities as well as their rights, in so important a subject as is dealt with in Customs Notifleation No, 959,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.